New version, draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-02.txt, available

Harald Alvestrand harald at
Mon Jun 18 09:39:22 CEST 2007

Martin Duerst wrote:
> At 14:21 07/06/18, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> Gervase Markham wrote:
>>> - Registry policy excludes characters which are permitted but not used in languages they register names for (for most registries, that's most of them), and checks for confusables in the remainder using the Unicode Consortium list;
>>> - User agents only enable IDN for registries which have such an appropriate policy.
>> That's the model I think is the right one (modulo some quibbles on the formulation of the last point - separate debate).
>> 3743 fits completely and totally into the second tier, but I can't see that as a statement that the first tier can claim the whole CJK group of characters as "ALWAYS".
> So what do you need in order to be able to do this?
> What else, besides confusability, are you looking for?
> If it's just that you, or Patrick, or whoever, don't know that
> script, then apart from accepting explanations by experts
> (such as those from the UTC), is there anything else than
> that you start to learn the script?
I'm looking for flat statement from you as an expert saying "The script 
<script identifier from Unicode goes here> is unproblematic, and should 
be in the list of scripts in rule H, section 2.8".

So far, I've seen a lot of hand-wringing about the list of scripts being 
too short, the list of scripts being Europe-centric, the arguments for 
the list of scripts being too weak, the list of scripts including 
worrisome characters (IPA), but I have NOT seen ANY flat statement 
"script XXX is unproblematic and should be included".


More information about the Idna-update mailing list